Bureaucratic Accountability and Performance

  • Kwangseon HwangEmail author
Living reference work entry

Latest version View entry history

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3322-2



Accountability is a social relationship in which an actor feels an obligation to explain and to justify his or her conducts to some significant other.

Accountability Dimensions

A key definition of accountability is “a social relationship in which an actor feels an obligation to explain and to justify his or her conducts to some significant other” (Bovens 2010). Accountability can also be defined differently based upon social, political, cultural, and institutional conditions. In order to explain and to justify their conduct, public organizations release information about their actions to the public. Thus, accountability is often seen as “transparency” of information. This study follows the concept of accountability as managing and meeting public and other expectations for performance and for bureaucratic, legal, professional, and political responsiveness (Kearns 1996; Romzek and Dubnick 1987).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Acar M, Guo C, Yang K (2008) Accountability when hierarchical authority is absent. Am Rev Public Adm 38(1):3–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Behn RD (2001) Rethinking democratic accountability. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Berman E, Wang XH (2002) Performance measurement in US counties: capacity for reform. Public Adm Rev. 60(5):409–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bovens M (2010) Two concepts of accountability: accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism. West Euro Polit 33(5):946–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bovens, M., Schillemans, T., & ’t Hart, P. (2008). Does public accountability work? An assessment tool. Public Adm, 86(1), 225–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cooper TL (2012) The responsible administrator: an approach to ethics for the administrative role. 6 ed. Jossey-BassGoogle Scholar
  7. Dubnick MJ, Frederickson GH (2011) Public accountability: performance measurement, the extended state, and the search for trust. The Kettering Foundation, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Dunn DD, Legge JS Jr (2001) US local government managers and the complexity of responsibility and accountability in democratic governance. J Public Adm Res Theory 11(1):73–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ebrahim A (2005) Accountability myopia: losing sight of organizational learning. Nonprofit Volunt Sector Q 34(1):56–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Forrer J, Kee JE, Newcomer KE, Boyer E (2010) Public–private partnerships and the public accountability question. Public Adm Rev 70(3):475–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gormley WT, Balla SJ (2010) Bureaucracy and democracy: accountability and performance, 3rd edn. CQ Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. Ho ATK (2006) Accounting for the value of performance measurement from the perspective of Midwestern mayors. J Public Adm Res Theory 16(2):217–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hwang K (2016) Accountability practices in public child welfare services. Int J Public Adm 39(8):587–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hwang K, Han Y (2017) Public caseworkers’ strategies coping with accountability demands. J Public Aff  https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kearns KP (1994) The strategic management of accountability in nonprofit organizations: an analytical framework. Public Adm Rev 54:185–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Koppell JGS (2005) Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of “multiple accountabilities disorder”. Public Adm Rev 65(1):94–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mulgan R (2000). ‘Accountability’: an ever-expanding concept? Public Adm 78(3):555–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Raelin JA (2011) The end of managerial control? Group Org Manag 36(2):135–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Romzek BS, Dubnick MJ (1987) Accountability in the public sector: lessons from the challenger tragedy. Public Adm Rev 47:227–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Romzek BS, Ingraham PW (2000) Cross pressures of accountability: initiative, command, and failure in the Ron Brown plane crash. Public Adm Rev 60(3):240–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Romzek BS, LeRoux K, Blackmar JM (2012) A preliminary theory of informal accountability among network organizational actors. Public Adm Rev 72(3):442–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schwartz R, Sulitzeanu-Kenan R (2004) Managerial values and accountability pressures: challenges of crisis and disaster. J Public Adm Res Theory 14(1):79–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Self P (1973) Administrative theories and politics: an inquiry into the structure and processes of modern government. University of Toronto Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  24. Smith P (1995) On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector. Int J Public Adm 18(2–3):277–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Thompson DF (1980) Moral responsibility of public officials: the problem of many hands. Am Polit Sci Rev 74:905–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public AdministrationGachon UniversitySeongnamRepublic of Korea